I Live as a Hermit in my Man-Cave and Have Sex with This Bagel

 

Peter: I’m gonna go microwave a bagel and have sex with it.

Quagmire: Butter’s in the fridge!

I am not an MRA. Nor am I planning on going my own way anytime soon.

I’m just a man.

I am an intellectual fellow-traveler with some of the MRAs and MGTOWs in that I think the slide away from traditional values coupled with feminist nonsense has been detrimental to society. But that’s about where it ends for me. I just don’t see the point in the battle if victory doesn’t include the ladies. Don’t get me wrong. I love drinking beer with the guys as much as anyone, but I don’t want them to rub my shoulders at the end of a long day. I don’t want to move through life with a hairy, burly sidekick. I don’t want to spend my days in an undecorated cardboard box, masturbating to crude pictures I drew on the box with ashes. I don’t want to end up in Peter Griffin’s alternate future in which I’ve sworn off women, made millions, and explored carnal knowledge with bagels.

Sure, sure, marriage 2.0 is often a bum deal for men. Feminism has spread many pretty lies. The battle is steep. Nevertheless, claiming to have all the knowledge about what is wrong with American society and what needs to happen to fix those faults, but being unwilling to use it for anything productive, is just another way of saying, “I choose not to run.”

Or of saying you’re a big pussy who has thrown in the towel.

Dress it up however you like, but if you Go Ghost, or whatever you call your male-specific version of Going Galt, you’re still trying to recreate a plot device from a fictional novel. Don’t conflate the theme with the plot device. If you want to be an expat because you enjoy travel, foreign women, and adventure, just say that. If you want to be an expat because you think America is beyond repair and you want to get out while you can, say that. It’s okay. Nobody gives a fuck, at least nobody did until you started howling at the moon. If you want to be an expat because you’re a special snowflake who is so much more enlightened than the rest of us, but not enlightened enough to save the rest of us, good luck finding your destination with your head buried that far up your own ass.

On Friday, Welmer posted an article at The Spearhead called Fatherhood: What’s the Point? In that article, Welmer said:

But as fundamental as parenthood may be, fatherhood is the more tenuous of two basic parent-child relationships. It is a fragile flower – a gift to humanity – that sets us apart from the beasts of the field. Anthropologists like to speculate about what it is that makes us uniquely human. Could it be language? The use of tools? The ability to plan ahead? All of these things may set us apart to one degree or another, but fatherhood surely is just as important as any of them. Whether one believes that humans evolved from troglodytes or were created in God’s own image, we can all agree that the human father-child bond is unique. In most other species, what sets sires apart from other males tends to be that they avoid killing their progeny. However, these beasts seem to have nothing more than a built-in tolerance for their offspring. In humans, there is mutual recognition of a special bond. That human fathers and children have a close, unique relationship is a very rare, special thing in the realm of life on earth.

So rather than argue about the benefits or drawbacks of fatherhood, I think we should take a step out of the debate and acknowledge that fatherhood is simply an integral part of ourselves as men, whether we have children or not. It is in our nature, and it influences how we relate to the world around us. The domestication of animals, the birth of art and material creativity, and the fostering of civilization are all fruits of the paternal nature of the human male.

In short, fatherhood is what makes us human.

All in all, the above is uncontroversial. In light of the recent death of Welmer’s father, it’s a beautiful tribute to the fact that the father/offspring relationship is special.

Other readers, based on the comments section, apparently saw something totally different in the article. There was lots of affirmation for the statement that appeared earlier in the article, “Rationally speaking, it would be very difficult to make a case for having children today.” But there was very little in the way of support for the actual thrust of the article. The closest came from people offering suggestions on how men can become fathers, with custody, without going the trouble of having a relationship.

And I just don’t get it.

I am not only a man. I am also a husband and a father. I enjoy those things because I have a wife and family who are worth the effort they require. For me, and men like me, having a wife and family are not death knells. They are very good things. For those men who have not yet achieved such satisfaction, the fight is about giving them better inputs, better laws, better ladies with which to work. It’s for damn sure not about convincing them that their evolutionary desire to live in a group and procreate is really a desire to live in a cave without lasting relationships. MRAs and MGTOWs bemoan shaming language, yet there is a lot of shaming language directed at men who do live or wish to live more traditional lives.

I don’t want to throw in the towel. I don’t want to go ghost. I don’t want to live in decay either. I don’t want my daughters, my genetic legacy, to live in decay. I want them to be able to spend their lives with people they love instead of in solitary existences punctuated with random hook-ups and rot. In order for that to happen, changes must occur. Such changes may require a little creative destruction.

Through such destruction, we might still educate the masses. Through such destruction, we might still achieve lasting happiness.  Such destruction requires active participation; vanished men will not implement the changes we seek. Such destruction requires us to seek a higher goal than bagel sex.

Are you down for the challenge? Or is that buttery hole just too tempting?